How to debunk: "The universe itself is my proof... it wouldn't be here without God"

All I can think of is:

"Its an argument from ignorance"

"Give me one logical reason why the universe needed a creator to exist?"

How would you debunk this argument?

2 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Bumbalough on February 12, 2012 at 4:02pm

Good ones, Sir. Best Wishes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doc Feral on February 15, 2012 at 4:46pm

I once read in a book when I was a child that when you hear thunder it's really a group of older men playing 9-pin in the mountain tops and if you drink from their liquor keg you'll sleep for 20 years. It must be true since a book told me...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew on February 9, 2012 at 1:58pm

Give me one logical reason why it needs a creator to exist. If so, where does this creator come from? Is pretty much the generic answer I'd give him. If I wanted to have fun with it, I would Ask him why this universe acts as if it would if there were NO supernatural god, most of them will say how perfectly placed the earth is, my retort is that the earth is where it should be and would be if the were no supernatural god, where it makes perfect sense in a rational universe. A universe where equations balance and forces create patterns when they meet in harmony. If there was a supernatural god then why isn't the earth rubbing shoulders with Saturn or Uranus? I never try to attack the notion of god itself, I like to attack the idea of supernaturalism, it's every gods weak point.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Bumbalough on February 12, 2012 at 4:09pm

Hello Matthew: in response to a request for logical reasons as to why existence needs a creator, an Abrahamic believer might well retort from Aquinas' Five Ways arguments. The atheist response, at least imho, was well written by Paul Tobin at his Rejection of Pascal's Wager site.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/aquinas.html

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Hamilton on February 9, 2012 at 2:07pm

In order to make that argument valid, they have to first show that the universe is more likely to not exist then it is to exist.

That's not possible, so the argument isn't valid.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Bumbalough on February 12, 2012 at 4:21pm

Hello David: Excellent point that goes to Aquinas' Five Ways ideas of contingency vs. necessity that were argued by Thomas Aquinas back in the 13th Century. However Aquinas made several mistakes, especially one pointed out by Hume in that render his arguments fallacious.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/aquinas.html

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on February 9, 2012 at 5:43pm

Yes, it is an Argument from Ignorance. But the argument is bust as soon as they claim it as proof for their god’s existence rather than any other deity’s. It is immediately a matter of faith issue and therefore just another example of theists confusing the terms “evidence” (which I never seem to shut up about – ha) and “argument”.

However it is a futile to debate the point. A Jehovah Witness recently told me – with a straight face - that even if the Big Bang was proven to be possible (as it has been shown to be!!!) that their god could easily create something from nothing or at least set the laws of quantum physics in motion to allow it to happen. I mean WTF can you say to that mindset?

I would sooner have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy – preference for JWB………

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Bumbalough on February 12, 2012 at 4:22pm

Hello Reg: good example of how a presuppositionalist thinks.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Howard on February 10, 2012 at 6:59am

Read Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking re how the condition of nothing existing is unstable. Not only do the laws of physics say that creating something out of nothing is possible (without the need for a deist or theist god), it is inevitable.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on February 10, 2012 at 10:51pm

One way to look at it is that before anything existed there was a state of pure potentiality. Anything can happen.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 11, 2012 at 3:56pm

As I recall, the related law states that the more precise the energy level of a state is known, the less stable it is. Zero is a very accurate measurement and thus the stability is extremely low. It's similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.